We know the universe had an origin or a beginning. Science calls this singularity the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by a very famous scientist (and atheist) named Fred Hoyle. Sir Fred Hoyle Hoyle was mocking the idea that our universe could have had an origin because at that time it was believed our universe was too complex to have had a beginning. The eternal or "steady state" universe was preferred by scientists and intellectuals because the universe with an origin required too much to explain. Hoyle had lots of company with him in agreement in their belief that the universe was eternal, including the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell. Even very smart people are humans, and all humans make mistakes, both honestly and dishonestly. However, after seeing the evidence for the Big Bang, Hoyle drastically changed his tune and said this: "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom. Otherwise, the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly miniscule. A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Hoyle, Fred, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. "Engineering and Science", November 1981. pgs. 8–12. I felt this quote by Dr. Hoyle was so important that I included it in my book The God … [Read more...]
The Big Bang by C. W. Bobbitt
When he noted parallels between his independent research and my musing on the Big Bang theory in my book Counterargument for God, Professor C. W. Bobbitt was kind enough to share his thoughts on that same subject. This post is overdue -- it really should have been published along with his writings on the origin of the universe published on this web page last month. Professor Bobbitt has also offered a unique perspective on Darwin and evolution theory that I will post that article in the near future, as soon as I locate the email that I accidentally filed in the wrong folder. HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN: THE BIG BANG The realm of existence contains everything that has being, everything that is. This includes “nothing”, which is the absence of something. This is said to set the stage for our understanding of how something can come from nothing; that is, how the universe could come to be. At some point in existence, “nothing” spontaneously separated into two somethings---two universes, mirror images of each other, each with its own space and time. Since we presently live in a universe which contains matter, let us choose one of these universes to be ours, and let the other universe be one of anti-matter so that the net change of matter due to this event is zero. This has the advantage of satisfying in a measure our innate sense of scientific correctness. We can focus on our universe and forget the other one, which is now in its own space-time .somewhere in existence. The appearance of our universe in existence was instantaneous: there was nothing, then there was … [Read more...]
The origin of the universe
Once upon a time, some of the smartest people in the world thought the universe might have always existed in its current state, hence the name steady state theory was given to the idea of an eternal universe that has always existed in more or less its current form. Aristotle. Bertrand Russell. Sir Fred Hoyle. These men were certainly not stupid. In fact, they were among the most brilliant intellectuals of their respective eras. Coincidentally, all three of these men were atheists. They believed our allegedly "fine-tuned" universe was eternal in part because there was insufficient scientific evidence, at least in their minds, for them to believe otherwise. But they also believed the universe had always existed as it currently is because of the implications created by the alternative, a fine-tuned universe that once had a beginning. Hoyle famously said, Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom; otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. Clearly, the idea of an eternal universe has more appeal than the idea of a fine-tuned universe produced from absolute nothingness, possibly because it is less complex. Fred Hoyle … [Read more...]
The Pearl: 23 March 2015
Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom; otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. -- Fred Hoyle Sir Fred Hoyle was probably the most brilliant scientist of the 20th century who never became world famous. He was the man who coined the term "big bang" to describe the small, incredibly hot beginning of the universe. However, Sir Fred was ridiculing the theory because he rejected the Big Bang. Hoyle didn't believe an origin of the universe was possible, probably due to his atheism. Even after the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation supported Hubble's observations of redshift, which indicated the universe not static, but expanding. In the quote above, Hoyle is referring to his prediction about the carbon 12 atom, which was an extraordinary accomplishment, for which fellow physicists William Alfred Fowler and Chandra Wickramasinghe won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics. Hoyle was famously snubbed and excluded from sharing the honor he so richly deserved, allegedly because he alienated and annoyed so many of his peers with his more controversial opinions. Author Simon Singh wrote the following about Hoyle: After ten … [Read more...]
Willful ignorance
A couple of years ago, I faced the rather formidable challenge of engaging in public debate against Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists. Ed was very experienced in that sort of thing; it was my first and remains as of today, the only formal debate I've ever had in my life. Therefore, my work was certainly cut out for me. Fortunately for me, video existed on You Tube showing Ed present his best arguments while debating a Muslim scholar in the U.K. named Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. So I took copious notes, seizing upon the opportunity to anticipate Ed's best shots. In fairness, Ed also should have been able to anticipate my best shots coming, if he'd bothered to read some of my work as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. In my opening remarks, I enumerated the seven points that Ed made that were the foundation his best arguments for atheism and then eviscerated them, point-by-point. I sort of expected that once the logical flaws in Ed's argument were systematically exposed and shredded before he'd ever opened his mouth, we would then be able to spend the remainder of our time arguing about points about the science that has now officially become the crux of my Counterargument for God. Because I knew Ed to be quite an intelligent man, I will now confess that I was expecting the alleged "freethinker" would be a little bit more open-minded. I foolishly assumed that Ed would be able to defend his own beliefs, rather than simply attacking what he supposed to be mine with every opportunity.Sadly, Ed disappointed me. Also in my opening … [Read more...]
